Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Manoj Trading Co. vs C.C., Mumbai on 3 January, 2001
ORDER
S.S. Kang
1. The applicants filed this application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order No. A/333/2000-NB(S) dated the 24th Feb., 2000.
2. The contention of the applicants is that in a similar situation, the Tribunal in the case of Diamond Traders vs Commissioner of Customs reported in 1999 (111) ELT 921 released the imported poppy seeds on payment of redemption fine.
3. In the present case, the poppy seeds were of Afganistan origin whereas in the case of Diamond Traders (supra), now relied upon by the applicants, poppy seeds were imported from Pakistan and there were three certificates from three different authorities, namely, Chamber of Commerce, Ministry of Food, Govt. of Pakistan and Export Promotion Bureau of Govt.s of Pakistan declared that the poppy seeds are of Pakistan origin and all are from licit and legal cultivation. In the present case, the Export Policy, in respect of poppy seeds, specifically provides that import of poppy seeds is not permitted except against a license or in accordance with the Public Notice subject to the condition that the importer shall produce the certificate from the competent authority of country of origin that opium poppy seeds had been grown legally in that country as per the requirement of International Narcotics Control Bureau. The Policy specifically (SIC) the import from other countries. The origin of poppy seeds was of Afganistan and no certificate was produced by the importer as provided under the Import Export Policy.
4. In the above mentioned circumstances, I find no error apparent on record in the Final Order. Further, I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balram, I.T. Officer vs M/s. Volkart Brothers reported in A.I.R. 1971 (S.C.) 2204 held that a mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning of points on which there may conceivably the two opinions. A decision on debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent on record.
5. In the present case, while interpretting the provisions of (SIC) export policy, the Tribunal had taken a view that now the applicants want rehearing of the case, which would have the effect of re-writing of the order affecting the merit of the case, which is not permissible.
6. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the application and the same is rejected.